Scott Sumner has a long and thoughtful post. Here is one bit:
According to the Official Method, none of these tidbits matter. But I have noticed that they have had some impact on my readers. They are each slightly persuasive about some aspect of my argument.
It has to be read in the context of the longer post, but it's a very important point. And this:
So that’s the goal of my blog, to constantly use theoretical arguments, empirical data, clever metaphors, and historical analogies that make people see the current situation in a new way.
Read the whole thing. It's one of the best statements of how blogging can make a difference; just don't call Scott a blogger…
Here's a new blog devoted to that topic.
It can't hurt to try.
I'm interested in understanding why MR has such a high-quality comments section. I'd like you to consider this passage, from today's Guardian (not today's Onion), and try to write high-quality comments on it.
The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's
permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that
"available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were
involved in child sex abuse.
Let's see how you do. If you can indeed produce high-quality comments, it means you're better than the other blog commentators. If you can't, maybe it means that Alex and I are in some way better with regard to what we post and how we present it. In that case, once our splendid framing is off-scene, you revert to your usual, rotten selves. I want you to end up with most of the credit.
Here, and the word comes from Greg Mankiw.
You'll find it here. Remember the good ol' days when everyone wondered whether the IMF had anything to do?
Here is the link, lots of top bloggers were there. I need to run and teach my first class of the semester (more on that in due time), so I don't have any idea what is actually in the video. I just know it has to be good.
But no promises are offered, of course. Comments are open!
Is blogging declining? Matt writes:
Laura at Apartment 11D offers an excellent précis
of the ways in which the blogosphere of today lacks much of the charm
of the blogosphere of four or five years ago. I would say that there
are compensating benefits to the new, more professionalized, more
institutionalized blogosphere. But it really is different and the
change has been for the worse in many ways.
Laura links to many comments. I'm more optimistic. Very few (if any) of my favorite bloggers have quit and of course there are some new ones. It's surprising how few of them have quit. (If blogging is so great, why hasn't competition competed away their returns? What about comparative advantage in this sector is so persistent?) The rest of the output you can ignore.
On Iran, Andrew Sullivan > Î£ MSM.
Megan McArdle offers some reasons why. I would add that MSM is unwilling to rely much on information aggregators such as Twitter and they are reluctant to report things in the uncertain, hanging narrative kind of way that blogs (sometimes) excel at. MSM needs the definitive-sounding soundbites for people who are tuned in for only a few minutes and don't come back or don't come back with any memory of what was said before.
We're seeing a revolution in coverage of current events right before our very eyes.